2001 Toyota Tacoma complaints

I BOUGHT THIS TRUCK IN JUNE 2014 FROM A PRIVATE DEALERSHIP IN VIRGINIA, THEN MOVED FROM MARYLAND TO SEATTLE. I HAD IT INSPECTED IN MARYLAND, IT PASSED, BUT I DISCOVERED THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTED COMPLETELY THROUGH- THE LEAF SPRINGS ARE NOT EVEN ATTACHED, MAKING IT UNSAFE TO DRIVE. I CONTACTED TOYOTA, AND THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD THE RUST TREATMENT APPLIED IN 2011, BUT THE EXTENDED WARRANTY EXPIRED IN 2013, SO THEY ARE REFUSING TO HELP. I HAVE ONLY HAD THIS TRUCK 9 MONTHS AND IT IS BASICALLY WORTHLESS AND DANGEROUS. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, A SQUEAKING SOUND EMITTED FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE BALL JOINT WAS FAULTY AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 140,000.

2001 TOYOTA TACOMA AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY IN TWO SEPARATE ACCIDENTS. *MW THE FIRST ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON JUNE 9, 2004. THE SECOND ACCIDENT OCCURRED MAY 7, 2013. THE FIRST TIME, THE CONSUMER WAS REAR ENDED. THE SECOND TIME, THE CONSUMER WAS HIT, BY ANOTHER MOTORIST WHO RAN A LIGHT. *JB

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THE SUB FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE SUB FRAME WAS CORRODED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE FAILURE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 144,321.

I TOOK MY TOYOTA TACOMA PICK UP TO SIGNATURE TOYOTA IN BENTON HARBOR, MICHIGAN FOR A FRAME RECALL AND THE DEALER INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS NOT RECALLED AND I HAD LETTER IN HAND THAT SAID IT WAS. NOW IN DECEMBER 14, 2014 I TOOK IT BACK TO THE SAME DEALER FOR THE SPARE TIRE RECALL AND THEY SAID THAT IT COULD NOT BE FIXED BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE THE FRAME RECALL FIXED AND I TOLD THEM THAT I HAD IT IN THERE AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS NOT PART OF THE RECALL. AND THEY WOULD NOT FIX IT AND TOYOTA WILL NOT FIX IT EARTHIER. THEY ARE TELLING ME THAT THE TRUCK IS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. I TOOK THE TRUCK TO JORDEN TOYOTA FOR A SECOND OPINION. I THOUGHT THAT SIGNATURE WAS TELLING ME THE TRUTH WHEN IN FACT THEY WEREN'T. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, THE REAR FRAME BECAME DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE REAR FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 220,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 50 MPH, A DEER JUMPED INTO THE ROAD AND CAUSED A CRASH. THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. THERE WERE NO INJURIES AND A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE FAILURE OCCURRED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 145,000. UPDATED 3/26/15*CN UPDATED 03/30/15*LJ UPDATED 10/30/15 *JS

RECENTLY, I BROUGHT MY 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA INTO THE DEALER IN HYANNIS, MA TO ADDRESS A RECALL OF THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER. THERE WAS A PRIOR RECALL/EXTENDED WARRANTY ON THE FRAME AND I ASKED THEM TO LOOK AT THAT AS WELL. I BOUGHT THE VEHICLE IN 2013 FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER, WHO ADVISED ME THAT HE HAD BROUGHT THE TRUCK INTO THE ORLEANS TOYOTA DEALERSHIP(IN ORLEANS, MA), DURING THE PREVIOUS RECALL/EXTENDED SERVICE PERIOD - IN MAY 2011 - WHEN HE HAD RECEIVED NOTICES, AND THAT HE WAS ADVISED THE FRAME WAS SOLID AND DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM. ACCORDING TO TOYOTA'S RECORDS, ORLEANS TOYOTA DOCUMENTED THAT THE FRAME WAS CHECKED OUT AND PASSED THEIR INSPECTION. NOW, ACCORDING TO [XXX]. AT TOYOTA NATIONAL CUSTOMER RELATIONS DEPT., THE RECALL/EXTENDED SERVICE WARRANTY PROGRAM ON THE FRAME THEN EXPIRED LATER, IN SEPT., 2011. NOW, HERE IS THE CATCH-22 THAT I AM CONFRONTED WITH ?? I HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY . [XXX] AND OTHERS, THAT AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION, IN MAY 2011, IF THE ORLEANS TOYOTA SERVICE DEPT. HAD PROVIDED A RUST PREVENTATIVE COATING TO THE FRAME, THEN THIS VEHICLE WOULD HAVE HAD AN EXTENDED WARRANTY OF 15 YEARS ON IT. AGAIN, THE PREVIOUS OWNER BROUGHT THE VEHICLE IN AS INSTRUCTED WHEN HE HAD RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL PROBLEMS. THE PREVIOUS OWNER DOES NOT KNOW WHY HE WAS NOT OFFERED THE RUST PREVENTION COATING BACK IN 2011, AND WAS CONTENT THAT THE FRAME WAS SOLID, BECAUSE HE HAD BROUGHT IT IN TO ORLEANS TOYOTA, AND THEY HAD INSPECTED IT. I UNDERSTAND THE NHTSA CURRENTLY HA

THE FRAME OF THE TRUCK IS RUSTED AWAY. THERE IS A RE-CALL FOR REPAIRING THE TIRE MOUNT UNDER THE TRUCK. TOYOTA STATES THEY CAN NOT FIX BECAUSE OF THE RUST. MY CASE WITH THEM IS 1411181384. THE BODY AND MOTOR ARE EXCELLENT. *JS

THERE IS A RECALL FOR THE UNDER NEATH TIRE RACK TO BE FIXED. IT APPARENTLY HAS RUSTED AWAY. I HAVE CASE 1411181385 WITH TOYOTA. THEY ARE UNABLE TO FIX THE TIRE RACK BECAUSE THE REST OF THE FRAME IS RUSTED AWAY AS WELL. *JS

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN FOR AN INSPECTION, THE MECHANIC NOTICED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME WAS RUSTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 72,000.

BROUGHT VEHICLE TO DEALER FOR RECALL NOTICE ON SPARE TIRE MOUNT. LATER THAT DAY, DEALER CALLED AND SAID THEY COULD NOT PUT VEHICLE ON LIFT TO CHECK THE MOUNT, AS FRAME WAS SO RUSTED THEY FEARED IT WOULD BREAK. I WAS INFORMED AT THIS TIME THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN EARLIER RECALL REGARDING THIS ISSUE, BUT THAT IT HAD BEEN DISCONTINUED. I TOLD THE DEALER I NEVER RECEIVED A RECALL FOR FRAME CORROSION. I CALLED TOYOTA AND WAS TOLD THAT THE RECALL HAD BEEN EXTENDED BUT WAS NO LONGER ACTIVE, AND THAT SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT BROUGHT IN WHILE THE RECALL WAS ACTIVE, THE 15 YEAR WARRANTY ON THE FRAME WAS VOID. CONSEQUENTLY, ALL COSTS TO REPAIR WOULD BE TOTALLY OUT OF POCKET. DEALER THEN TOLD ME THAT IN THE PRESENT CONDITION, THE TRADE-IN VALUE OF THE VEHICLE WAS NOW $200-$300 INSTEAD OF ANYWHERE NEAR THE BOOK VALUE OF THIS MODEL ($6000-$7000). *TR

THE FRAME ON MY TOYOTA TACOMA 2001 TRUCK IS SO RUSTED OUT THAT IT IS NOT INSPECT-ABLE. THE LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP WILL DO NOTHING FOR ME....I HAVE CONTACTED TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE...WAITING FOR A CALL BACK...TOYOTA NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING TO FIX THE PROBLEM....NHTSA...PLEASE HELP!! *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO CRASH INTO A POLE AND THE AIR BAGS FAILED TO DEPLOY. A POLICE REPORT WAS NOT FILED AND NO INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000.

EXCESSIVE RUST EVERYWHERE ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE VEHICLE!! *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE DRIVING 50 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL SHOOK AND THE VEHICLE SWAYED. THE FAILURE OCCURRED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN. UPDATED 10/23/14*CN UPDATED 10/24/2014*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED THE RECALL NOTICE FOR THE FAILURE WAS SENT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS. THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT ASSIST WITH THE REPAIRS. UPDATED 4/20/2015 *JS UPDATED 7/8/2015*JS

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WAS BEING PERFORMED ON THE VEHICLE, THE TECHNICIAN NOTICED THAT THE SUBFRAME WAS COMPLETELY CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DEEMED THE VEHICLE UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 126,000..UPDATED 09/30/14 *BF

NOTICED THAT THE RIGHT REAR OF TRUCK BED IS SAGGING SO I LOOKED UNDER THE TRUCK AND SAW THE CHASSIS IS RUSTED ALL THE WAY THROUGH. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. WHILE SERVICING THE VEHICLE, AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC DISCOVERED THAT THE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED DUE TO CORROSION BUILD-UP. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 171,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY CORRODED AND BEGAN TO DETERIORATE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ISSUE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 230,000. ..UPDATED 10/06/14 *BF UPDATED 3/11/2015 *JS

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE HAVING A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE PERFORMED, THE TECHNICIAN NOTIFIED HER THAT THE SUB FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS DEEMED UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 200,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE HAVING MAINTENANCE PERFORMED, THE TECHNICIAN NOTICED THAT THE PASSENGER'S SIDE SUB FRAME WAS CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 167,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE'S FRAME FRACTURED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE FRAMED NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED AND THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 100,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, HE NOTICED THAT THE FRAME WAS TILTED CAUSING THE TIRES TO WEAR OUT PREMATURELY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE SPRING SHACKLE FRACTURED DUE TO THE FRAME BEING COMPLETELY CORRODED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 135,000.

WE RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE ON THE VEHICLE FOR THE FRAME RUSTING TO QUICKLY. THE COMPANY'S RECALL NOTICE STATED WE COULD TAKE IT TO THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP FOR THE FRAME TO BE SPRAYED WITH AN UNDERCOAT. WHEN WE TOOK IT TO A DEALERSHIP, WE WERE TOLD WE HAD "MISSED THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE IT SPRAY COATED." WE MISSED IT BY ONE WEEK. TWO DEALERSHIPS WERE NOT WILLING TO SPRAY THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE. WHEN WE RECEIVED THE RECALL NOTICE, THERE WAS NO NOTIFICATION WE HAD UNTIL A CERTAIN DATE TO GET THIS DONE. MANY PEOPLE LEAD BUSY LIVES, WORKING. WE MISSED IT BY ONE WEEK. I HAVE WRITTEN TO THE TOYOTA CO. IN MA. AND I HAVEN'T HEARD BACK AT ALL. NOW I HAVE A VEHICLE I CAN NOT DRIVE, INSPECT, OR REGISTER, DUE TO THE POOR QUALITY WHEN IT WAS MANUFACTURED. NOW THE CO. ISN'T WILLING TO STAND BEHIND ITS PRODUCT. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUB FRAME WAS PERFORATED DUE TO RUST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A PRIVATE MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 102,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 111,000.

AFTER BEING DRIVEN ON THE HIGHWAY APPROXIMATELY 60 MILES, THE 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA TRUCK WAS BEING BACKED INTO THE DRIVEWAY WHEN STEERING SUDDENLY LOCKED. UPON INSPECTION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE FRONT PASSENGER WHEEL WAS NO LONGER ATTACHED TO THE CAR. THE LOWER BALL JOINT HAD FAILED. I DETERMINED THAT TOYOTA ISSUED A RECALL FOR MY VEHICLE MODEL AND YEAR (NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 05V225000) FOR THIS ISSUE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONSEQUENCE: THE LOWER BALL JOINT MAY SEPARATE FROM THE KNUCKLE CAUSING LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL AND A CRASH COULD OCCUR. IT SEEMS THAT OUR VEHICLE EXPERIENCED THIS ISSUE FOR WHICH VEHICLES WERE RECALLED BY TOYOTA. HOWEVER, WHEN I CALLED TOYOTA, I WAS TOLD THAT OUR VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL AND THAT TOYOTA WAS NOT WILLING TO DO ANYTHING. WE HAD TO SPEND THE MONEY AND TIME TO FIX THE FAILED BALL JOINT AND ARE CONSIDERING REPLACING THE DRIVER SIDE BALL JOINT PROPHYLACTICALLY AS WE NO LONGER TRUST THE WHEELS TO REMAIN ON OUR TRUCK. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A WHEEL COME OFF A CAR. IF THE WHEEL HAD DISENGAGED FROM OUR CAR 2 MINUTES PRIOR, WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS MOVING AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, THE CONSEQUENCES COULD HAVE BEEN SEVERE. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT TOYOTA IS NOT INCLUDING OUR CAR IN THE RECALL - EVEN THOUGH THE EXACT SAME ISSUE FOR WHICH THE RECALL WAS ISSUED (FOR OUR VEHICLE MODEL AND YEAR) OCCURRED ON OUR CAR. IF THE ACCIDENT HAD HAPPENED AT HIGH SPEEDS, SOMEONE WOULD HAVE DIED AND A LAWYER WOULD BE CONTACTING TOYOTA AND NHTSA. PERHAPS THE RECALL NEEDS

HI, I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN FOR MY VEHICLE AS I LOVE MY TACOMA AND HOW IT DRIVES AND WORKS FOR ME IN MY DAILY LIFE. AS I HAD TOOK MY VEHICLE IN FOR A RECALL ON MY SPARE TIRE CABLE, THE TECHNICIAN AND SERVICE MAN HAD TOLD ME THAT IN MY FRAME OF MY VEHICLE THERE IS A LARGE RUSTED OUT HOLE. SINCE THEN, I REALLY HAVEN'T FELT SAFE DRIVING MY VEHICLE ANYWHERE AS I'M AFRAID THAT MY FRAME WILL BREAK AND CAUSE A REALLY BAD ACCIDENT. I'VE ALSO HAVE HAD IN THE PAST WHERE MY DAD'S VEHICLE (1998 TOYOTA TACOMA) WAS RECALLED FOR THE SAME EXACT THING (FRAME ISSUE). AS FOR MY VEHICLE, I AM THE SECOND OWNER AND MY BROTHER WAS THE FIRST. THIS VEHICLE HAS BEEN HERE IN THE MINNESOTA WEATHER ALL ITS LIFE TIME. PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, IF NOT, I WILL PUSH THIS FORWARD WHERE I WILL GET SOME ATTENTION TO MY VEHICLE, MY SAFETY, AND OTHERS. AND PLUS, I WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE THIS INTO A LEGAL MATTER AS I LOVE MY TOYOTA. *TR

I BOUGHT THIS VEHICLE USED IN 2011 AND WAS NOTIFIED OF A RECALL FOR FRAME RUST. BY THE TIME I GOT AROUND TO SCHEDULING AN APPT, I WAS INFORMED THE RECALL HAD ENDED. NOW, HOWEVER, THE FRAME IS SEVERELY CORRODED AND IS STARTING TO GIVE WAY AT THE REAR SHACKLE. I FEEL THIS VEHICLE HAS BECOME A SERIOUS HAZARD TO DRIVE DUE TO THE FRAME BUCKLING. IF THE RECALL WAS PUT INTO EFFECT, TOYOTA IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM, AND NOW IT HAS BECOME A SERIOUS LIABILITY AND SAFETY ISSUE. I WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS VEHICLE REPAIRED TO THE POINT OF MAKING IT SAFE, BUT FEEL THAT I WAS NOT GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS DONE UNDER THE LIMITED TIME LEFT ON THE RECALL WHEN I BOUGHT IT. THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS ISSUE WITH THE FRAME CONSTRUCTION IS EVIDENT BY THE FACT THAT THE BODY HAS ALMOST NO CORROSION PRESENT. THERE APPEARS TO BE A MANUFACTURING ISSUE WITH THE HEAVY FRAME STEEL THAT SHOULD NOT BE CORRODING LIKE THIS. THERE IS CURRENTLY ALSO AN ACTIVE RECALL FOR THE REAR TIRE CARRIER - WHICH IS RELATED TO THE SAME ISSUE. AGAIN, THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY AND LIABILITY ISSUE THAT I THINK TOYOTA IS OBLIGATED TO ADDRESS BEFORE SOMEONE IS HURT OR KILLED BY THIS PROBLEM. CONTACTING TOYOTA DOES NO GOOD, AS THEY REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THE PROBLEM. THEY SAY THIS WAS NOT A RECALL BUT A WARRANTY EXTENSION THAT HAS NOW RUN OUT. HOWEVER, THERE IS A SEVERE DEFECT PRESENT IN THE FRAME THAT THEY ACKNOWLEDGED AND NOW REFUSE TO STAND BEHIND EVEN THOUGH IT IS A DANGEROUS LIABILITY FOR ANY VEHICLES

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUBFRAME WAS PERFORATED DUE TO RUST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 154,000.

I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND WAS ALERTED TO THE FRAME CORROSION. I CAN ACTUALLY PUSH MY FINGER THROUGH THE RUST AND FRAME, HOLES ARE VISIBLE IN THE FRAME. THE TRUCK IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND I FEAR OF SAFETY FOR MY FAMILY. I CONTACTED TOYOTA AND THEY ADVISED ME THAT THE VOLUNTARY BUYBACK PROGRAM FOR FIXING THIS WAS EXPIRED. I AM NOW LEFT WITH AN IMMACULATELY CLEAN CAR IN PRISTINE SHAPE THAT CANNOT BE DRIVEN AND I AM LEERY OF EVEN SELLING TO SOMEONE ELSE REGARDLESS OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE FRAME. REPORTS OF THIS PROBLEM ARE POPPING UP ALL OVER AND IT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH AS A SERIOUS MATTER AND SUBJECT TO SAFETY RECALL. LESSER ISSUES HAVE HAD RECALLS AND IT HAS BEEN LEFT UP TO TOYOTA TO PROVIDE VOLUNTARY BUYBACK PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF BEING MANDATED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.

IN REVIEWING YOUR WEBSITE FOR RECALLS ON THE TOYOTA TACOMA, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS ONE MISSING THAT CAME BEFORE THE RECALL FOR THE SPARE TIRES. THE ONE I SPEAK OF IS THE RECALL ON THE VEHICLE FOR FRAME PERFORATIONS OF WHICH MY VECHICLE NOW HAS AND HAS DEEMED UNSAFE FOR DRIVING. I BELIEVE THIS RECALL SHOULD BE ENFORCED BY TOYOTA AS MYSELF AND NUMEROUS OTHERS HAVE VEHICLES THAT CAUSE SAFETY HAZARDS FOR NOT ONLY OURSELVES BUT INJURIES TO OTHERS. THESE VEHICLES ARE STILL ON THE ROAD, AS OTHERS LIKE MY SELF WERE NOT AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS SITUATIN TOYOTA HAS PLACED US IN BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING NOTHING TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION, I'D LIKE TO TAKE M VEHICLE IN FOR THE TIRE RECALL HOWEVER I WILL NOT RISK MY LIFE IN ORDER TO GET THIS REPAIR DONE. AS AN AGENCY TO IS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM HAZARDS, I AND MANY OTHERS (VISIT FACEBOOK PAGE TOYOTA TACOMA FRAME DEFECTS) FEEL THAT YOUR AGENCY SHOULD STEP-UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. *TT

2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO EXCESSIVE CORROSION RECALL. *SMD A LOCAL MECHANIC INFORMED THE CONSUMER, THERE WAS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CORROSION AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. THE DEALER REPAIRED THE SPARE LIFT TIRE PLATE UNDER THE RECALL. HOWEVER, THEY STATED THE RECALL FOR THE FRAME HAD EXPIRED AND THEY WOULD NOT DO THE REPAIR.

FOLLOWING ROUTINE SERVICE INSPECTION ON 4/2/2014, SIGNIFICANT PERFORATION OF MY 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA 4X4 TRUCK FRAME WAS IDENTIFIED, DUE TO CONDITIONS CONSISTENT WITH RUSTING. ACCORDING TO A 2012 TOYOTA DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSTIC, NO INDICATION OF RUST WAS NOTED DURING THE DEALERSHIP SERVICE INSPECTION. ALSO, NO HARD COPY DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY TOYOTA CORPORATION REGARDING AN ALLEGED VOLUNTARY RECALL CAMPAIGN TO ADDRESS CORROSION OF FRAME. ACCORDING TO THE TOYOTA CORPORATION CASE WORKER ASSIGNED, HE WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANY HARD COPY DOCUMENTATION OF SAID VOLUNTARY RECALL CAMPAIGN NOTICE REGARDING CORROSION OF TRUCK FRAME; IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE CASE WORKER DID SAY HE COULD PROVIDE 'VERBAL' CONFIRMATION THAT NOTIFICATION WAS SENT TO MY RESIDENCE AT THE TIME. AT THIS TIME, I AM CURRENTLY CONSIDERING LEGAL ACTION, PENDING FURTHER REVIEW OF CASE. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A MINOR REAR END CRASH WHERE THE DRIVER AND THE PASSENGER'S HEAD REST BECAME FRACTURED UPON IMPACT. THE CONTACT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE HEAD REST FRACTURING WITH SUCH A SLIGHT IMPACT. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED AND NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 95,000.

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH, A LOUD NOISE EMITTED OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT ENTIRE FRAME WAS FRACTURED. THE VEHICLE WAS DECLARED UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE EXTENDED SERVICE WARRANTY EXPIRED AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 160,000. UPDATED 4/29/14*CN *TR THE CONSUMER STATED DECLINED TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE BUT WILL HOWEVER REPLACE THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER DUE TO CORROSION BUT NOT THE FRAME. *TR

ON 5/7/13 MY TOYOTA TACOMA AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY, WAS INJURED, AND WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCIDENT. UN-INSURED DRIVER, 2008 TOYOTA SCION, WAS CAUSE OF ACCIDENT, AND SCION'S AIRBAG WORKED. 2008 TOYOTA SCION WAS RECEIVED BY MF AUTO ON 4/4/13, PURCHASED BY YUKA OKUNA, INSURED BY GEICO ON APRIL 9, 2013 & RE-INSURED ON APRIL 10, 2013 W/ALL STATE INSURANCE (POLICY 4/10 TO 10/10?), AND POLICE REPORT STATED AMANDA LONGLEY OWNED CAR & INSURED BY SAFE AUTO. YET INSURANCE COMPANIES CLAIM IT IS 'PHANTOM OR GHOST DRIVER' AND NOT INSURED AT ALL- NOT LAWFUL IN STATE OF INDIANA AS PROOF OF INSURANCE IS REQUIRED? IT APPEARS BMV RECORDS MAYBE ALTERED AFTER POLICE REPORT- POLICE VERIFIED INFORMATION AT SCENE OF ACCIDENT? ADDITIONALLY, NOTICED POLICE REPORT STATED "SAFETY EQUIPMENT EFFECTIVE" WAS NOTED "YES" FOR SCION & TACOMA BUT MY TOYOTA TACOMA AIRBAG DID NOT WORK PROPERLY- PERCEIVED UNSAFE PRODUCT. LASTLY, TACOMA TOYOTA WAS IN A SEPARATE ACCIDENT IN 2004, NOT MY FAULT (REAR ENDED AT AROUND 35-40 MPH), AND AIRBAG DID NOT DEPLOY- CAUSED A LOT OF DAMAGES AND INJURY. TOYOTA FAILED TO PROVIDE A SAFE PRODUCT AND IS A CAUSE OF LOSS IN MANY WAYS- TOO MANY LOSSES TO DETAIL. TOYOTA WAS INFORMED IN WRITING BUT FAILED TO ADDRESS PRODUCT SAFETY CONCERNS ADEQUATELY AND APPEARED MORE CONCERNED ABOUT BRAND REPUTATION THAN SAFETY OF PEOPLE? (SEE PHI MATRIX FOR SOME REASONS- LINKED TO STOCK PRICES/BRAND/ DESIGN /BEAUTY ANALYTICS).

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS CRACKED. THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC, WHO STATED THAT THE FRAME WAS CRACKED ON BOTH SIDES NEAR THE SHACKLES. THE FRAME WAS WELDED BUT THE PROBLEM RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE INCIDENT. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 120,000.

THE FRAME ON THE VEHICLE IS RUSTING. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT TACOMA'S HAD RUSTY FRAME ISSUES UNTIL AFTER I PURCHASED THE VEHICLE. I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS FRAME WILL CAUSE UNSAFE DRIVING CONDITIONS IF SOMETHING GIVES OUT WHILE DRIVING. I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE RESALE VALUE OF A YEAR CLASS OF VEHICLES THAT ARE KNOWN TO HAVE RUSTY FRAMES. *TR

THE FOAM IN THE HEADREST OF BOTH THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER SEATS HAS DETERIORATED TO THE POINT THAT THE METAL BAR UNDERNEATH IS EXPOSED. NEITHER SEATS HAVE HAD SEAT COVERS, THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN IN ANY WRECKS, AND THE HEADRESTS HAVE BEEN USED NORMALLY. I HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR A FIX TO THIS PROBLEM AND THIS LOOKS TO BE COMMON FOR THIS GENERATION OF TOYOTA TRUCKS. THIS SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE FOR A VEHICLE OF THIS AGE AND IS A VERY DANGEROUS PROBLEM FOR SUCH AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF SAFETY EQUIPMENT. *TR

I WOULD LIKE KNOW TOYOTA DOES NOT HONOR RECALLS ON THIS TRUCK BECAUSE IT IS AN R TITLE THAT HAD FRONT END DAMAGE. IT WILL NOT HONOR ANY CORROSION RECALLS (IE.SPARE TIRE LIFE PLATE, EXCESSIVE REAR FRAME CORROSION) HOWEVER I STILL RECEIVE EVERY RECALL NOTIFICATION ON THIS VEHICLE FROM DIRECTLY FROM TOYOTA MOTORS. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SUBFRAME WAS FOUND TO BE CORRODED WITH HOLES. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE SUBFRAME WAS NOT REPLACED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 95,000.

SEVERE SHIMMY WHEN DRIVING, AND SWAYING TO EITHER SIDE. I THEN TOOK THE TRUCK TO TOYOTA WHERE THEY FOUND OUT THAT THE ENTIRE STEERING CONTROL SYSTEM IS CORRODED TO THE POINT THAT THE VEHICLE CAN LOOSE CONTROL AT ANY TIME. I WILL BE FORCED TO CHANGE THE YOKE AND EVENTUALLY THE RACK AND PINION. *TR

WE PURCHASED A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA NEW IN LATE 2000. MY HUSBAND RECENTLY REALIZED THE FRAME IS ALMOST RUSTED THROUGH ON THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE NEAR THE GAS TANK. NEEDLESS TO SAY, IT ISN'T SAFE TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE UNTIL/IF IT CAN BE FIXED. WE HAVE VIEWED AND READ UP ON NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS FROM OTHER TACOMA OWNERS AND HAVE SEEN SOME RECALLS OR NOTIFICATIONS TO SELECT TACOMA OWNERS BUT NOT IN THE STATE WE RESIDE IN-MO. WE RAN INTO A SIMILAR ISSUE WITH ANOTHER NON-TOYOTA VEHICLE WHICH ONLY COVERED HOT-WEATHER STATES. WE LIVE IN MISSOURI....WE HAVE EXPERIENCED EXTREME HEAT AND COLD DURING THE LAST FEW YEARS. IT'S UNREASONABLE TO ME THAT THE AUTO DEALERS CAN EXCLUDE CERTAIN STATES WHEN IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY CUSTOMERS IN THOSE EXCLUDED STATES COULD EXPERIENCE THE SAME ISSUE. IF IT'S DETERMINED TO BE THE SAME ISSUE OWNERS IN OTHER STATES ARE FACING, WHY NOT AGREE TO COVER THE REPAIR??? WE PLAN TO DO SOME INVESTIGATING AND CALLING OF OUR OWN TO SEE IF TOYOTA IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE REPAIR OR AT LEAST OFFER US A REASONABLE BUY BACK OPTION. WE ARE TOYOTA OWNERS AND PLAN TO STAY THAT WAY DEPENDING ON HOW THIS ALL TURNS OUT. WE'VE ALWAYS URGED OTHERS TO BUY TOYOTA VEHICLES DUE TO THEIR LONGEVITY AND RELIABILITY....I HOPE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE PROVEN WRONG ON THIS ONE. *JS

I PURCHASED A USED 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA AND WITHIN 6 MONTHS NOTICED THAT THE FRAME WAS RUSTING THROUGH. I LEARNED IN 2013 THAT THERE WAS A RECALL FOR THE FRAME. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD THAT THEY WOULD REPLACE THE FRAME. A FEW DAYS LATER, I WAS INFORMED THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE DOING THIS BECAUSE I HAD NOT TAKEN THE VEHICLE IN FOR RUST PROTECTION. I CALLED TOYOTA DIRECTLY AND WAS INFORMED THAT I SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED FOUR NOTICES PERTAINING TO THIS RECALL, HOWEVER TOYOTA DID NOT HAVE THE CORRECT NAME IN THEIR DATABASE, AND THUS I DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICES. IF I HAD RECEIVED THEM AND TAKEN THE VEHICLE FOR THE TREATMENT, THE FRAME WOULD HAVE BEEN WARRANTED FOR FIFTEEN YEARS. THE VEHICLE WAS TRANSFERRED INTO MY NAME IMMEDIATELY AFTER PURCHASE, AND MY NAME SHOULD HAVE APPEARED IN TOYOTA'S DATABASE. THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE, AND I FEEL TOYOTA SHOULD EITHER REPLACE THE FRAME OR BUY THE VEHICLE BACK FROM ME, AS IT HAS FROM OTHER OWNERS.

WHILE DRIVING HEARD A SKIDDING SOUND, LOOK UNDER TRUCK LOST TRD PLATES, ROTTED BECAME LOSE AND FELL. UNDER CARRIAGE CORRODED. *TR

BOUGHT MY TOYOTA TACOMA ABOUT A YEAR AN A HALF AGO. ITS A 2001 V6 EXTRA CAB 4X4. BROUGHT IT TO THE TOYOTA DEAL ON RT 37 EAST IN TOMS RIVER N.J AND ASK THEM TO INSPECT THE FRAME. THEY SAID IT WAS IN GOOD CONDITION. JUST THE OTHER DAY I BROUGHT IT IN TO A GARAGE IN TOWN FOR AN OIL CHANGE AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON. COME TO FIND OUT THE FUEL TANK IS RUSTING AND HAS A HOLE IN IT. ALSO THE FRAME IS SEVERALLY RUSTED, THE CROSS BAR THAT HOLDS THE FUEL TANK IS CRUMBLING ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE FRAME. THIS WHOLE RUSTING FRAME ISSUE NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED NOT ONLY IS MY FAMILY AND MY LIFE IN DANGER BUT SO ARE THE OTHER DRIVERS AROUND ME. *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE BRAKES WOULD NOT RESPOND CAUSING HIM TO CRASH INTO THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE. THE PASSENGER IN THE SECOND VEHICLE SUSTAINED NECK AND BACK INJURIES ALTHOUGH THE CONTACT WAS NOT INJURED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE BRAKES HAD FAILED BECAUSE THE STRUT AND SHOCK HAD DISMOUNTED FROM THE VEHICLE DUE TO SEVERE RUST ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE UNDER CARRIAGE. THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN A MANUFACTURER'S RECALL WHERE THE UNDER CARRIAGE WAS TREATED WITH A ANTI-CORROSION COATING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE AND STATED THE RECALL HAD EXPIRED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 61,000. *TR

THE TACOMA FRAME RUST ON MY TRUCK IS BEYOND REPAIR. I AM PUTTING MYSELF AND MY FAMILY IN DANGER EVERY TIME I DRIVE IT. I CALLED TOYOTA CORPORATE OFFICE AND THEY BASICALLY TOLD ME THEY CANNOT NOT DO ANYTHING FOR ME. TOYOTA HOWEVER GAVE ME A CASE NUMBER [XXX] THAT WAS ABOUT A YEAR AGO. THE TELEPHONE NUMBERS FOR THAT IS 8003314331. FOUR MONTHS AGO I BROUGHT THE TACOMA FOR A TIRE CARRIAGE RECALL AT OUR LOCAL DEALER WHICH IT WAS ABOUT TO FALL OFF. THEY TOOK SOME PICTURES OF THE ROTTED FRAME AND SENT THEM TO TOYOTA CORPORATE OFFICE. AGAIN THE LONG ANTICIPATED WAIT. I KNOW I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO IS LEFT OUT. I CANNOT SELL THIS VEHICLE BECAUSE IT IS DANGEROUS. PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS MATTER FOR THE MANY CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE THE 2001 -2004 TOYOTA FRAME ROTTED AND WAS LEFT OUT. THANK YOU. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE THREAD OF THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE SEAT BELT WAS WEARING EXCESSIVELY AND UNRAVELING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS. THE TECHNICIAN STATED THAT THE SEAT BELT WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 80,000. *TR